My Writing Philosphy - A Respect for the Ending
I'm going to be talking about the endings of many different things, so you're warned now that this is going to be a minefield of spoilers. When I was in the eighth grade, I read Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials series. The first book was really, really good—its diabolous ex machina not withstanding. And I did enjoy The Subtle Knife. However, I consider The Amber Spyglass one of the worst books I've ever read. Before I continue, I am irreligious. It doesn't offend me, or my beliefs. Even if I was religious I can understand God as a dramatic concept. Why do I hate the book? For many reasons, like it dropping the plot to soapbox, or jumping from character to character so often it's hard to become invested in anything. It's anticlimactic. The allegory is incredibly confused. And finally, there's the ending. I absolutely loathe the ending of the Amber Spyglass. So, let's spoil the fuck out of it. The main characters are Lyra and Will, and they helped save the multiverse by... blada blada controversy. So, at some point they realize their love for each other. And their reward for doing this is being forced to live in entirely seperate universes for their entire lives, pretty much. They can't both live in the same universe because one guy died after ten years of living in a universe that wasn't his own. Or you know, that one guy died of heart disease and it was falsely attributed to the odd before the common. Lyra and Will come up with a bunch of thoughts on how they can get around this, and they're repeatedly shot down... by angels who can travel through universes. The angels are supposedly good, by the way. I strongly feel like it's a diablous ex machina, but that's just one part of the combination to why I hate this ending. I mean, it does feel like its forcing sadness. And no, it being an allegory for Adam and Eve doesn't really excuse anything. Along the way, there were two things that made Lyra, I guess for lack of a better word "special." She was a talented liar, and she could read the Golden Compass, the alethiometer. At the end she could do neither. Yes, it was for a cause, but the books do not trade caring for the characters for caring about the cause very well. It gave me an immediate dislike for sad endings. At the time I didn't realize that I didn't hate the ending because it was sad. I hated the ending because it was unsatisfying. But because I didn't realize that until later, my philosophy towards writing endings was built in certain directions. My philosophy remains that a bad ending can stain someone's perception towards your entire work. I find getting the ending just right the most important part of the story. A bad beginning makes the audience put your book down. A bad ending makes them regret ever picking it up. I took the Don Bluth method of endings: you can put your audience through anything, as long as give them a happy ending. Even today, I tend to give my characters happy endings, but I make them go through absolute hell to get there. However, if you've noticed some of what I've written, some of them do end... sadly. And some of them will end sadly. But at the time, I was conflating sad with bad. And let me tell you both Of Mice and Men and Romeo and Juliet did not help with that. I understand that Romeo and Juliet is a classical tragedy, and they're supposed to end sadly, so I won't really get into it. Beyond the fact that I really don't think we should be telling teenagers, who already have problems with depression and becoming sexually aware, that's highly romantic to kill yourself for someone you fell in love with at first sight within one week of meeting them. Of Mice and Men ends with tragedy. Lennie ends up killing a woman, and then George puts him out of his misery. The movie adaptation we watched hilariously has him do this mid-sentence. Once again, it... doesn't feel satisfying. We saw these characters we grew to like just end up losing everything in the end. Not to mention that this particular tale leaves many questions unanswered. Like, we don't really know what George is going to do afterwards. I mean if the story was about Lennie, or the friendship between the two, they're both kinda dead. The dramatic purpose for tragedy is that it comes at the ending of a warning tale. "This is what's going to happen if you go down this route." Some tragic endings fill this, like Romeo and Juliet or 1984. Some don't, like Of Mice and Men (unless the message is don't let mentally disabled people out of your sight), or The Amber Spyglass (unless the message is don't be Adam or Eve). I do respect the use of a tragic ending, and something like 1984 would not have its bite if it didn't end on a sad note. So, what's the difference between The Amber Spyglass and 1984? (I mean beyond 1984 being much more cohesive, better written, and having its bludgeon actually fit with the tale its trying to tell). Simple, in 1984, the warning is the most important. In His Dark Materials, at least at the start, the characters are the most important. When the characters are the most important thing in a story that ends in tragedy, to me it seems forced, and is almost always unsatisfying. For example, in Little Cassie, the novel that I am writing, whatever happens to Andrew in the end will not matter. Why? Because his story isn't about him. His story is about Cassie. When the story isn't about the main character, the story can satisfyingly end in tragedy. 1984 is about the dystopia, not Winston. It can satisfyingly end in tragedy. The Golden Compass was about Lyra. It could not satisfyingly end in tragedy. And yes, Romeo and Juliet is not about Romeo and Juliet, it's about the stupid love between them. A tragic ending is not a tool to be used lightly. Yes, even if it comes out of nowhere, it can be seen as "memorable" to the audience (there actually exists a bench IRL with Will & Lyra's names on it, one that exists in both their worlds). To me, however, there is a fundamental difference between "memorable" and "satisfying" and the two don't always go together very well, even when dealing with sadness. And just having something sad for the sake of people remembering your work to me denotes a fundamental lack of respect for the audience. It's why I especially hate the diabolous ex machina trope. Then there's the bittersweet ending. A lot of people like this, and it can be much more powerful than a happy or a depressing ending. Why? Because there's still a large chance the ending could be satisfying. The soldier dies, but his cause was winning the war, and he did so in his dying breath. To the Moon ends on a bittersweet note, but the actual mission was accomplished. In that case though there was never denial that it could have ended absolutely perfectly. It didn't delude you into thinking anything else. I like bittersweet endings. With just a plain old downer ending, it makes everything the main character did seem futile. Even if that was the point, it rarely leads to satisfaction. With a bittersweet ending, it can mean that the cause has outgrown the character who fought for it. This really isn't meant to be advice for anyone. It's just my own opinion in my own writer's philosophy. You can take it or leave it however you'd like. A lot of people have a different thought on how a story could or should end. I'll probably write a few more of these with regards to the other portions of my writer's philosophy. I started with the... least debatably controversial. Some of my other philosophies are in regards to things like role models, preaching a certain belief set, what should and shouldn't be in children's media. All 100% subjective opinion that largely define the way that I write. Category:Miscellaneous